Resources

Sir Stephen Sedley and Cambridge University Press (CUP) have allowed us to publish the introduction to Lions under the Throne, Essays on the History of English Public Law. The first part of this chapter sketches the early growth of English public law. The second part tries to describe what it was like to be involved in the modern take-off of public law as it roused itself from its long sleep.

The process through which legal redress may be obtained against public authorities is often criticised as being politicised, of little value to claimants, and burdensome on public bodies. Based on the largest empirical study of judicial review outcomes to date, Varda Bondy, Lucinda Platt and Maurice Sunkin explain how the process can actually benefit claimants, and improve policy and practice.

This research paper considers the extent to which the Ministry of Justice review of the Mandatory Civil Legal Advice Telephone Gateway engages with the key legislative and policy intentions behind it, as well as the extent to which the Gateway, as implemented, meets those intentions.

Public bodies have in recent years been exhorted to get decisions ‘right first time’.1 The concept of administrative justice is seen by some scholars as including initial decisions as well as what happens when administrative decisions are challenged. Notwithstanding these developments, the redress of grievances remains central to the concerns of administrative law scholars, and public bodies expend a great deal of time and money handling grievances. It is just about possible to imagine an idealised administrative system in which no errors are ever made by decision-makers and all past, present and future decisions are accepted as correct and legitimate by citizens and business enterprises. In reality, this can never be achieved (except perhaps in well-resourced administrative schemes of limited size and relative simplicity).

What place does mediation have in judicial review cases? Research by the Public Law Project (PLP) and the University of Essex on the permission stage in judicial review concluded that most judicial review claims are settled and that most settlements satisfy the claims made in the judicial review. While some cases that settle as a result of bilateral negotiations could arguably result in a better outcome for one or both parties were they mediated instead, mediation is an unlikely option where more familiar and straightforward routes to disposal are available to lawyers.

Given its place in the UK’s constitutional system, an empirically based understanding of the way the judicial review procedure operates is of the utmost importance to users of the system and policymakers. This project offers the first analysis of the process since the post-Bowman reforms were introduced in October 2003 and does so at a time when potentially major changes are taking place to the system in the form of regionalisation and the anticipated transfer of certain cases from the Administrative Court to the Upper Tier Tribunals.

This empirical research study drew much from the methodologies and experience acquired in the course of the previous studies, and built on the important links established by PLP with the Administrative Court, academics and practitioners.

The aim of this report is to evaluate the procedure from the perspective of health service users, looking at issues of fairness and independence, and complainants satisfaction with both the handling and outcome of their complaints.